Talk:Ulcerative colitis/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tom (LT) (talk · contribs) 07:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this up for review Rytyho usa! I'm an editor active in the anatomy and medicine spaces. I've reviewed around 80 or so good articles and have written myself around 15 - 20 (see my talk page for more details).

I can see one article right off the bat which will affect this nomination, which is that there are a number of sections (too many to list) that require citations. I can see your extensive and fast editing style, so 'm happy to put this article on hold if you'd like to address this during the review.-Tom (LT) (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tom, thanks for reviewing! Absolutely, I'll go ahead and get that cleaned up shortly. Thanks for bringing that to my attention! Rytyho usa (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rytyho usa great job so far - this is a length and complex topic. I've made some comments below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rytyho usa not that much has changed since the review was opened. I am going to mark this review as failed - when you have addressed things below feel free to nominate. Please don't feel disheartened about this - Rome wasn't built in a day and your work to date has been excellent, however this article may need a bit more time than a review can provide. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tom (LT) Sounds good - thanks for your feedback. After I have time to improve things and address those points, I'll resubmit for GA review. Thanks! Rytyho usa (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

• Firstly - thanks for your edits to this article. For the most part it reads very well and is very easy to understand. I also think it does a great job of making some quite complicated concepts and terms easy to understand, so well done for this.
• The article doesn't meet GA standards directly for this reasons:
  • the pathophysiology section is neither well written nor broad enough
  • the history section is insufficient
  • the notable causes section is empty (I wonder if this could be integrated as a sentence into the history section)
  • Additionally, there are a number of areas still requiring references, which I have tagged the article with
• Regarding readability:
  • Overall very good, as I state above
  • Infrequently I think there is too much emphasis on the comparison between UC and CD. I suggest for clarity the first time a fact is written it is about UC, and then the comparison with CD occurs later
  • It could be me, but I feel that you have mentioned that CRP and ESR are inflammatory markers and need monitoring quite a few times
  • I think that greater emphasis should be given to things that are essential or accepted, and other things should be deemphasised. I mention this with regard to diagnosis (where endoscopy is mentioned much later) and also treatments (where we are talking about nicotine and iron supplements before surgery).
• Regarding phrasing - a few areas that come to mind on this first review:
  • and anemia may develop (not requiring transfusion). - suggest find a source but this should usually be 'not usually' requiring transfusion.
  • As UC is believed to have a systemic (i.e., autoimmune) origin should be clearer I think
  • Commonly affected organ systems include: eyes, joints, skin, and liver --> "Commonly affeted areas". Not sure but it is weird to think of the eye or liver as an organ system as compared with just an organ.
  • Angular chelitis is characterized by redness (erythema) at the corners of the mouth - "erythema" can be removed.
  • Inflammation may also involve the white part of the eye (sclera) or the overlying connective tissue (episclera), causing conditions called scleritis and episcleritis. Episcleritis may occur in ulcerative colitis slight duplication here, you state it can be in UC back to back.
  • appearing on the shins (extensor surfaces). - shins and extensor surfaces aren't the same, so this will need to be explained
• Pathophysiology - uh, what? The short chain fatty acid bit seems like a hypothesis belonging in 'causes'. This section needs to improve. I would remove the table and state in more detail and clarify the types of immune cells found to infltrate the intestine, where they are found, and how they end up causing ulceration.
• Diagnosis
  • I think this section should start by more clearly stating that endoscopic biopsy is the gold standard method for diagnosing UC. As it is, this important fact is kind of just slipped in.
  • Stool studies - need to specify what type of study here
  • Although ulcerative colitis is a disease of unknown causation, inquiry should be made as to unusual factors believed to trigger the disease should provide an example about what unusual factors should be inquired about
  • Pseudopolyps may be observed - need to explain what are these
• Epidemiology - the country specific subsections seem tiny and out of date, so I suggest make them a table or remove them.
• I would recommend you do a once over on the image captions - will comment on this during the second pass

I'm happy to keep this article on hold if you want to have a stab at improving and sourcing, but I will need to run my eye over the prose again. Happy also to discuss my points above - these are meant as points for discussion rather than things than explicit instructions. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed feedback! Really excellent, quality stuff. For my own purposes, to keep track of what I've done, the following still needs to be addressed:

• Expand/improve the following sections: Pathophysiology, History, and Causes.
• Address potentially excessive or poorly placed comparisons between UC vs Crohn's.
• Reorganizing treatment section from current (meds, procedures, surgery, etc) to one that emphasizes most established therapies.
• Diagnosis - specify stool studies, identify causes that should be investigated, define pseudopolyps (maybe in the pathophysiology section)
• Epidemiology - update with newer data
• Address image captions - reword.

-- Rytyho usa (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)